Part 6

Mr. LANE. I suggest that is the identical picture with the one published on the cover of Life magazine, Exhibit 334, in every respect, including the creases in the trousers, the background, with the exception of the rifle in the hands of Oswald, which appears to have no telescopic scope in Exhibit 335.

In addition, there clearly has been some other doctoring of the photograph around the head of Lee Harvey Oswald, and the trees and other background material over his left shoulder have been removed from the Associated Press picture, but are present in the Life magazine picture.

Shadows and fenceposts which can be observed between the legs of Lee Harvey Oswald in Exhibit 335 have been removed in the Life magazine picture. I would like to offer this picture as the next exhibit.

Mr. RANKIN. That will be marked Exhibit 336.

(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 336 for identification.)

Mr. RANKIN. Will you tell us what that is, Mr. Lane?

Mr. LANE. Yes; 336 is an 8-1/2-by-11 glossy photograph of a picture appearing in Newsweek magazine, March 2, 1964, credited by Newsweek magazine to the Detroit Free Press. I would suggest that that is an identical picture with the other two pictures in every respect, except that it has no telescopic sight on the rifle, and there is a great deal of metallic materials present on that rifle clearly not present in the other two pictures.

The CHAIRMAN. Did you say metallics?

Mr. LANE. Metallics.

Mr. RANKIN. Will you tell us what you mean by that, Mr. Lane?

Mr. LANE. Yes. Just below the hand, the left hand of Lee Harvey Oswald, there is clearly visible a series of pieces of metal, allegedly part of the rifle, which are in no way clear--which are in no way present in the other pictures.

The CHAIRMAN. I see.

Mr. LANE. To make that clearer, I would like to offer Exhibit 337, which is an enlargement of the picture 335, the New York Times picture.

(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 337, for identification.)

Mr. LANE. This enlarges the area on the rifle just below what is allegedly Oswald's left hand. It clearly shows an absolute absence of all of the metallic material present in the Newsweek photo, 336.

This is a front page of the New York Journal American dated February 18, 1964, which is an identical picture with the one published in Life magazine, Exhibit 334, and the credit lines appearing on that publication indicate that the picture has been secured from the Associated Press through the Detroit Free Press.

(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 338, for identification.)

Mr. LANE. That picture has a telescopic sight, and is not the picture in terms of the metal material on the rifle which Newsweek stated they secured through the Detroit Free Press, and is not the picture without the telescopic sight which the New York Times states that it secured through the Associated Press. In any event, I would like to submit a picture procured from Worldwide Photos.

Mr. RANKIN. 339.

(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 339, for identification.)

Mr. LANE. This is allegedly a picture taken in the Dallas Police Station, showing the alleged murder weapon.

The CHAIRMAN. That is No. 339, Mr. Lane?

Mr. LANE. Yes, sir, and I would call the Commission's attention to the curved line of the stock present in Exhibit 339, and obviously absent from every other picture, indicating that in no event is the rifle allegedly in the hands of Lee Oswald, in Exhibits 334 through 338 comparable to the alleged murder weapon as shown in the Dallas police station.

And should the Commission decide to investigate the obviously doctored pictures that have been circulated so widely in our country, I would refer the Commission investigators to the Times Picayune of New Orleans, published on November 24, 1963, in which an Associated Press story indicated that the Dallas police chief, Jesse Curry, stated that he had in his possession photographs found in the home of Lee Harvey Oswald's Russian-born wife which linked Oswald with the rifle used in the assassination of President Kennedy. Curry said in the article attributed to Curry----

Mr. RANKIN. Do you wish to make that a part of the record?

Mr. LANE. Yes.

Mr. RANKIN. That will be Exhibit 340.

(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 340 for identification.)

Mr. LANE. The article attributes a statement to Curry indicating that he, the Dallas Police Chief, found the pictures in the suburban Irving, Tex., home in which Marina Oswald lived, and stated that Mr. Curry had said that the pictures will be used in evidence in Oswald's murder trial. This was published, I assume, prior to the time that Oswald was himself killed on that day.

Representative FORD. Would the date of the paper be on the back side?

The CHAIRMAN. It is on the front. November 24th.

Mr. LANE. I would like to offer this as an exhibit.

Mr. RANKIN. This is marked Commission Exhibit 341.

(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 341, for identification.)

Mr. LANE. Exhibit 341 is a page or portion of a page of the New York Times, on Sunday, December 8, with a picture of the alleged murder weapon, secured, according to the credit line under the picture, from the United Press International, indicating clearly that that rifle is not the rifle allegedly being held by Mr. Oswald in any of the pictures so widely circulated throughout our country.

Mr. RANKIN. On what do you base that last conclusion, Mr. Lane? Would you point out to the Commission the differences as you see them?

Mr. LANE. Yes; the reference of the stock. The stock has a clearly curved and bent line in this picture.

Mr. RANKIN. That is in Exhibit 341?

Mr. LANE. Yes, and it is present in none of the pictures of Oswald holding the rifle; 336, for example, in Newsweek magazine shows almost a straight stock. Some of them show even an absolutely straight stock.

Exhibit 335 from the New York Times shows a perfectly straight stock--which is not only a stock unlike this particular Italian 6.5 millimeter carbine, but is a stock I believe unlike any rifle stock produced during the 20th century, and possibly the 19th century, anywhere. Rifle experts seem to agree that every stock must have in it some break, so that it is possible to place your hand around the rifle while your finger holds the trigger. And there is no break in the doctored photographs, in the stock portrayed on the doctored photographs.

I have checked many rifle catalogs. This is not my field, and I don't qualify as an expert. But I have checked many rifle catalogs, and have only seen rifles with a break where the stock becomes narrow enough for one's hand to grasp it while pulling the trigger.

Mr. RANKIN. Is that the basis of your opinion that you have just given, that it doesn't have a break in it, and that other rifles for any period later than you have described do?

Mr. LANE. Well, several persons who have described themselves as rifle experts have made that statement to me.

Mr. RANKIN. Who are those?

Mr. LANE. I believe I have some of their names here. I don't have the names of those who have called, but I can secure that at our first break by a telephone call to my office.

Mr. RANKIN. Would you furnish that then?

Mr. LANE. Surely. In any event, whether there was another rifle or not, the rifle portrayed in the picture is clearly--in the picture in which Oswald is allegedly holding the rifle--clearly is not the rifle allegedly claimed to be the murder weapon. I wonder if I might ask the Commission if it might produce the rifle now, so that we might compare the actual rifle with the pictures.

The CHAIRMAN. We will do that in due course. But we don't have the rifle here now, Mr. Lane. We will make the proper comparisons, you may be sure, with experts.

Mr. LANE. Now, on another peripheral matter--unless there are any further questions in relation to this matter----

Mr. RANKIN. No, you may proceed. Do you have negatives of these pictures you have produced?

Mr. LANE. No. I am glad you asked that question, because I can now relate to you about a conversation that I had 2 or 3 days ago with a Mr. Dirksen, who is on the photo desk of the Associated Press. I called Mr. Dirksen and asked him for a glossy of the picture which the Associated Press sent out over the wire service.

Mr. RANKIN. Could you identify Mr. Dirksen a little more clearly?

Mr. LANE. He just told me he was employed. I called the Associated Press in New York City and asked for the photo desk, Mr. Dirksen answered and said he was employed there. I asked him what his specific position was there, and he declined to give me that information. He said he didn't think it was relevant.

In any event, I asked him if he could secure for me a glossy, a glossy copy of the picture sent by the Associated Press over the wires. And I described the picture as the one of Oswald allegedly holding the murder weapon in his left hand, and having on his right hip a pistol, allegedly the pistol with which he slew Officer Tippit.

Mr. Dirksen stated to me that he could not make a glossy of that picture available to me and I pointed out to him that in the past the Associated Press had been most cooperative when I asked for pictures, and he said, "Yes, we sent a whole batch up to you last week, didn't we?" I said, "Yes, you did, I appreciated that. I wonder why this picture is being treated differently from other pictures." He said, "This is not a normal picture and this is not the normal situation."

I asked him what he meant by that. He explained that there was a special contract--he did not have all the details, he said, because he is not one of the persons who was involved in drafting the contract--but there was a special contract between the Associated Press and the source of this picture, and they agreed, the Associated Press agreed in this contract that they would not make a glossy available to anyone, that they would send the pictures out only to their subscribers, and that no one else would be allowed to see the picture.

I said if that was the understanding, I certainly would not wish to have them breach their agreement, and asked if instead he would make the name of the source known to me, so that I might go directly to the source and see if I might secure the picture in that fashion. He stated he could not do that, because one of the other stipulations in the contract would be that they could not reveal the name of the source of the picture.

I discussed this with an employee of the New York Times thereafter, since I knew that the New York Times was a subscriber to the services made available by the Associated Press.

Mr. RANKIN. Could you identify that employee, please?

Mr. LANE. No, I am not going to be able to discuss sources, obviously, here, I am sorry.

But this employee indicated to me thereafter that an inquiry had been made by the New York Times to the Associated Press along the same lines as the inquiry which I had made, in terms of trying to determine the source of the Associated Press picture. And I was informed by this employee of the New York Times that the Associated Press declined to name the source of the picture, even when the New York Times made a request. Therefore, I do not have the negative, and I do not know the source of the picture.

Mr. RANKIN. Is that true with regard to all of the pictures that you produced?

Mr. LANE. My office called Life magazine, and asked someone at Life magazine on the photo desk, the editorial department, if a picture could be made available and they stated that they would not make a glossy available--it was their policy in reference to all pictures in their possession.

Those are the only inquiries I made with reference to the source of the pictures.

Mr. RANKIN. Now you may proceed.

Mr. LANE. Yes. I would like to raise one other peripheral matter before going into the evidence, if I might. That is, I would like to call to the attention of the Commission this article, and ask that it be marked as an exhibit.

Mr. RANKIN. That has been marked Commission Exhibit 342.

(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 342, for identification.)

Mr. LANE. Thank you.

This is an article appearing in the New York Journal American Sunday, February 23.

Mr. RANKIN. This consists of two separate pages, does it not?

Mr. LANE. It does--the first page being a masthead and front page, headline from the Journal American, dated Sunday, February 23, 1964, and the second page containing a portion of the front page of the Journal American on that date, and a portion of page 15, the continued story of the Journal American on the same date.

This is an article written by Bob Considine, who enjoys a reputation for being an excellent reporter. Mr. Considine states in his article that an eyewitness to the shooting of Officer Tippit by the name of Warren Reynolds was himself recently shot through the head by a man with a rifle.

Now, I don't believe that it is alleged that Reynolds actually saw the person pull the trigger which sent the bullets at Officer Tippit. As I understand it, Mr. Reynolds has stated that he, Reynolds, heard the shot, the shooting, left his office and saw a man running away, placing new shells into a pistol as he ran away. And Mr. Considine indicates that Reynolds thereafter identified Oswald as the person who was running from the scene.

This article indicated that during January, Mr. Reynolds was himself shot through the head with a rifle, and that he is in the hospital--I believe he was in the hospital at that time. I don't know what the state of his health is at the present time.

Mr. Considine indicates that a person was picked up in the Dallas area and charged with the shooting, but that someone who Mr. Considine refers to as "his girl"--I assume he is making reference to the gentleman who was charged with the attack upon Reynolds--testified in such a fashion, and took a lie detector test, so that the person charged with the crime was released.

This person, Betty Mooney MacDonald, who helped to free her friend, according to Mr. Considine, herself had worked as a stripper in the Carousel Club in Dallas, owned by Jack Ruby.

Two weeks before this article was written, Miss MacDonald was herself arrested for a fight with her roommate, and the week before the article was written, Mr. Considine states she hanged herself in her cell.

I would request the Commission to investigate into these series of most unusual coincidences, to see if they have any bearing upon the basic matter pending before the Commission.

The CHAIRMAN. It may be introduced as are all of these pictures, admitted.

(The documents heretofore marked for identification as Commission Exhibits Nos. 334 to 342, were received in evidence.)

Mr. LANE. In the course of my investigation, I have come across some material which would be relevant only if I was first able to examine the rifle, quite frankly. I wonder if that might be able to be accomplished sometime during the day?

The CHAIRMAN. During the day?

Mr. LANE. Today, if possible.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, I think not, because we don't have it. But we will make it available to you, though, at the very first opportunity, Mr. Lane.

Mr. LANE. Fine. Then I will reserve my comment in reference to the rifle for that occasion.

The CHAIRMAN. You may.

Mr. LANE. Thank you. I would like to, on behalf of Lee Harvey Oswald, make this information available to the Commission.

It, of course, has been alleged by the chief of police of Dallas, and by the district attorney of Dallas that Oswald was present on the sixth floor of the Texas Book Depository Building during the very early afternoon of November 22, 1963, and that from that area he fired an Italian carbine, 6.5 millimeters, three times, twice striking the President of the United States, wounding him fatally, and injuring the Governor of Texas by striking him with a bullet, on one occasion.

The physician who signed the death certificate of the President pronouncing him dead was Dr. Kemp Clark, whose name appeared on the official homicide report filed by the Dallas Police Department, and attested to by two police officers.

On the 27th of November, the New York Times reported, "Dr. Kemp Clark, who pronounced Mr. Kennedy dead, said one bullet struck him at about the necktie knot, 'It ranged downward in his chest and did not exit' the surgeon said."

On the same day the New York Herald Tribune stated, "On the basis of accumulated data, investigators have concluded that the first shot fired as the Presidential car was approaching, struck the President in the neck, just above the knot of his necktie, then ranged downward into his body."

According to Richard Dudman--Mr. Dudman is the Washington correspondent, as I am sure you all know better than I, for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch--according to him, the surgeons who attended the President while he was at the Parkland Memorial Hospital, described the wound--were in agreement in describing the wound in the throat as an entrance wound. The St. Louis Post-Dispatch on December 1 carried a rather long and involved story by Mr. Dudman, recounting his conversations with the physicians who were treating the President on the 22d at the Parkland Memorial Hospital.

Dr. Perry explained that he began to open an air passage in the President's throat in an effort to restore his breathing, and he explained that the incision had been made through the bullet wound in the President's throat--since that was in the correct place for the operation, in any event. Dr. Perry, according to Mr. Dudman, described to him the bullet hole as an entrance wound.

Dr. Robert N. McClelland, who was one of the three physicians who participated in that operation, later stated to Mr. Dudman, "It certainly did look like an entrance wound."

He went on to say that he saw bullet wounds every day in Dallas, sometimes several times a day, and that this did appear to be an entrance wound.

One doctor made reference to the frothing of blood in the neck wound. The doctor said, "He is bubbling air." Two of the doctors, Drs. Peters and Baxter, inserted a tube into the right upper part of the President's chest, just below the shoulder, to reexpand the lungs, and to keep them from collapsing.

Dr. Jones and Dr. Perry inserted a similar tube on the left portion of the President's chest.

The activity was necessitated because the bubbling air was the first clue that they had that the President's lung had been punctured.

The prosecuting authorities, confronted with what seemed then to be evidence that the President had been shot from the front, in the throat----

The CHAIRMAN. Are you reading now, Mr. Lane?

Mr. LANE. No, I am just making reference to this. That is not a quote.

The CHAIRMAN. It is not a quote. You are just paraphrasing what was in this article of Mr. Dudman's?

Mr. LANE. No, I am leaving Mr. Dudman now, and going on to statements made by the prosecuting authorities. I will submit quotations--I will try to remember to place quotation marks when I have a quotation.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes, all right.

Mr. LANE. The authorities who were confronted with what seemed to be irrefutable evidence that the President had been shot in the front of the throat, concluded that the Presidential limousine was approaching the Book Depository Building when the first shot was fired, because it seems at the very outset a theory was developed by the prosecuting authorities that Oswald was on the sixth floor of the Book Depository Building, that he was the assassin, and that he acted alone.

I think that the record and an examination of the activities of the Dallas police, and the Dallas district attorney's office, will show that the only area where they have been consistent from the outset was once this theory was enunciated, they stayed with the theory, and they were devoted to the theory, regardless of the discovery of new evidence and new facts.

For example, the New York Times stated on November 26, 1963, "The known facts about the bullets, and the position of the assassin, suggested that he started shooting as the President's car was coming toward him, swung his rifle in an arc of almost 180°, and fired at least twice more." At that time, the prosecution case had already been developed in terms of the theory that Oswald was the assassin and that Oswald acted alone.

There were newspaper pictures published in many portions of the country showing the Textbook Depository Building on Houston Street where the Presidential limousine approached the Book Depository Building, and Elm Street, where after the limousine made a sharp left turn it continued until it reached the underpass directly ahead.

And in these newspapers, there were superimposed dotted lines showing the trajectory of the three bullets, showing that the first bullet was fired while the Presidential car was still on Houston Street, still approaching the Book Depository Building.

However, it soon became essential for the prosecution to abandon that theory, because the eyewitnesses present, including Governor Connally, and Mrs. Connally, stated that the limousine had already made a left turn, had passed the Book Depository Building at the time that the first shot was fired.

In essence, then, the prosecution remained with the theory that Oswald, while acting alone, shot the President from the front from the back.

However,----

Mr. RANKIN. I don't understand that.

Mr. LANE. I don't understand that either, but this was the theory of the prosecution--that the President had--it had been conceded at that time that the President had been shot in the front of the throat. However, the evidence then developed indicated that the Presidential limousine had already passed the Book Depository Building, and the President was not facing the Book Depository Building when the first shot was fired. At that time, Life magazine explains it all in a full page article entitled, "An End to Nagging Rumors, the 6 Crucial Seconds."

And Life conceded that the limousine was some 50 yards past Oswald when the first shot was fired, and that the shot entered the President's throat from the front, but explained that the President had turned completely around and was facing the Book Depository Building when the shot was fired.

But that theory, however, could not----

Mr. RANKIN. Do you have the date of that article?

Mr. LANE. That was December 6, Life magazine. The full page article was entitled "End to Nagging Rumors, the Six Critical Seconds."

The problem----

Senator COOPER. May I ask a question there--just to clarify? Did you say that in this article that Life said that the late President had turned around and was facing the Book Depository Building when the shot was fired?

Mr. LANE. Yes, Senator. The trouble with that theory, however, which was enunciated by Life, and from where they secured it I do not know, but they certainly were in Dallas very much in evidence on the scene--was that the week prior to then Life magazine itself printed the stills of the motion pictures, and in those stills, with Life's own captions, it was quite plain that the President was looking almost completely forward, just slightly to the right, but almost forward, and certainly not turned around when the first shot was fired. And so the stills printed in Life's own publication a week before they enunciated this theory proved that the Life theory was false.